Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, in this forum there is not time, but it would be helpful if there was a greater willingness to explain the rationale and the logic of that. One thing that surprises me that nobody seems willing to acknowledge when asked this rhetorical question about whether there is any other jurisdiction or area of medicine where there is a required waiting period is that there is an obvious one, and it is euthanasia and assisted dying. I sit on an Oireachtas committee that is currently looking at whether to introduce euthanasia or assisted dying. Even in the most liberal of regimes, part of the so-called safeguards that are discussed in that area is a waiting period. The reason for this is because it involves the termination of a human life. I remind witnesses that in the case of euthanasia, it is a person's decision to terminate their own life, whereas with abortion, we are talking about the termination of another life. I find it strange that there has not even been an acknowledgement by the witnesses to date that there is this obvious example of a similar life and death issue, namely, euthanasia, in various jurisdictions across the world where it is seen as entirely appropriate - not that there would be the possibility of a waiting period but that there would be a mandatory waiting period, and indeed a much longer one than three days. I do not think that really requires an answer. I have not heard it from the witnesses at any stage and it is the most obvious point.

I wish to address the issue of the research. If there are 6,000 people who did not go through with a second appointment, minus X minus Y minus Z for whatever other reasons, such as people going on to hospital or so on, the onus is on the witnesses to establish that there was not a single person who changed their mind as a result of a waiting period, unless they believe that abortion is just completely a matter of autonomy and is never regrettable. The great majority of Irish citizens would believe that, even when those other situations which are possible are factored in, there may well have been several thousand women who changed their mind as a result of that waiting period. As a precautionary principle, the witnesses should be much more attentive to that point. They have never acknowledged it at any stage to my knowledge.

Regarding the proposal that there be a statutory obligation on healthcare workers to refrain from providing misleading information or otherwise engaging in conduct that is designed to, or could reasonably be considered as being designed to, prevent or delay a woman's access to termination of pregnancy, we are all in favour of making sure there is never misinformation, but I find it tendentious and I would like to hear the response of the witnesses as to who they think would adjudicate on what constitutes misinformation. Since there is also a case to be made, and we have seen it over the years where abortion counsellors and medical professionals have often counselled in such a way as to bolster the choice of an abortion and, indeed, to hasten it, I find it strange that the witnesses are only interested in prohibiting through statue conduct that would be designed to prevent or delay a woman's access. I see a lack of neutrality in that and I ask the witnesses to address that point briefly as I have another question.